Problems with my ears

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

I had a smart meter fitted 7 days ago. I was apprehensive but thought that most people were overreacting to new technology. In 7 days my ears feel blocked and I have constant ringing in them. Also our door bell keeps ringing on its own accord. The meter is mandatory so there’s little I can do. I’m looking at installing shields to stop the frequencies as with my wireless I only have it on for short bursts as that also effects my head and ears. The government needs to listen. I have never had problems with my ears until now.

Share your story

This entry was posted in Ringing in my ears and tagged Smart meter. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Problems with my ears

Sam scott says:

July 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Hi ive just got few question on a past post on stopping radiation from the smart meter. As i have ear issues and im trying to isolate the cause. So how do you apply the foil? How does it stop the radiation and what are the breakers to the house? I am just wanting any information on stopping radiation entering the house.

Reply
Michael says:

February 20, 2012 at 9:44 pm

     Michael, what you’ve told me just reinforces my ideas about a conspiracy theory, which was only a hunch before, because I didn’t (and still don’t) know exactly what free-energy devices you are talking about. There have been many over the centuries, though, and I have never heard of a single one of them being verified.
     First of all, I think we are odds a little over the term “free energy devices”. To me, it conveys a device that creates energy out of nothing, which is a scientific impossibility – and I understood this was the normal meaning of the term, and as such only a pseudo-scientific concept. But you appear to be including technology which taps into energy which is already there, as in solar energy. This is not free energy in the usual sense of the term, and it is not free to obtain it either, because, before humans can use it, they have to develop technology and build and maintain infrastructure first, and that costs money. If you wish to talk about things like this, I believe the term “free energy” could be misleading, and might give the wrong impression.

     However, your post seems to go beyond this. There is nothing secret or suppressed about solar energy; yet, while mentioning the sun as an energy source, you also mention other unspecified technologies which are suppressed – and so this leads back to the idea that you may be referring to energy sources which science tells us are impossible. (I’m not sure how the concept of “Mother Earth” relates to this, incidentally.)
     You have told me there is this free-energy technology, but only a few know about it (you are apparently one of them, because you said you are in the know), and meanwhile mainstream science is suppressing such knowledge and fobbing the world at large off with lies about it. If you refer to fundamental laws being B.S., and regard them as something being taught to dumb down the population, you are effectively saying it’s all a pack of lies. You are also flying in the face of centuries of broad scientific consensus on the basics of how physics and other sciences operate – all of which have been verified many, many times by many different and independent researchers – and these theories are constantly being scrutinized by other researchers who won’t hesitate to pick a theory to pieces if they can find any fault with it. Any theory which survives this for a century or more is highly likely to be true.
     All of this about science lying to us, suppressing the real truth, and so on which you mention is *exactly* the kind of thing I meant when I referred to conspiracy theories. Would you like to say what free-energy technology you are referring to, and provide proof that it really works? (And I don’t mean the solar energy, or other stuff like the tides, wind, and so on; I mean the stuff that science suppresses.) You may regard science as deliberate lies to hide the truth; but the fact is that scientific knowledge works – and does so better than any other body of knowledge humanity has so far devised – and the scientific method works better than any other method for revealing detailed and accurate information about how the universe works.
     It is not perfect, and sometimes gets things wrong; but the method itself tends to be self-correcting, and knowledge that is not actually wrong but simply not fully precise yet tends to become more precise as time goes by. Whatever its faults, it is still the best method yet devised for getting accurate knowledge of how the world works. If anyone disputes this, I would challenge them to present an alternative method which gives better or more or more accurate understanding of how the world works. New technology which its designer based on scientific theory and then works when completed is ample proof that scientific theory does work.

     I don’t have time to fully read the web site to which you referred me (many of the pages seem to be just teasers anyway, and you have to buy various D.V.D.s to get the full story), but I did get an overview, and it is quite like many other web sites I’ve seen over the years. This particular one looks as if it is tapping into the “2012 end of the world” fever, based on an interpretation of the ancient Mayan calender – something that quite a few New-Age sorts of people are getting into. I’m sure we will see a lot more of it during the rest of this year.
     I will tell you what will happen on 22 December, 2012 – absolutely nothing, other than the ordinary things that happen in this world, along with maybe the occasional disaster that might happen in any year. (You don’t need a special date on a mystical calendar for a disaster!) It may be that a whole lot of cycles within this Mayan calendar may be ending at the same time; but that is just exactly like midnight at the start of 1 January, 2000 in our own calendar, where the numbers denoting the millennium, century, decade, year, month, and day all set to new values (1999/12/31 -> 2000/01/01 – every number changed, if we consider 31 and 1 different numbers, despite both ending in “1”). Nothing happened at all in the real world: the calendar just clicked over to new numerical values in each position. (Actually, the millennium, century, and decade began a year later, at the start of 1 January, 2001 – but that’s a whole other argument, based on certain facts about the calendar we currently use.) Why should it be any different when the Mayan calendar similar clicks over to new cycles? It may be relevant to read Wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon .
     I wouldn’t set too much store by the scientific accuracy of a web site that also presumes to tell you how to win lotto based on astrology and numerology, presents messages from aliens and tells us of abductions by aliens, and talks about the Reptilians and the Greys as if they were known fact (reminds me a bit of David Icke, that one does – see http://www.davidicke.com if you want to know more about him).
     These may be beliefs held by some mystics, New-Age believers, and the like, and I don’t want to ridicule such people, and I have dabbled a bit in the New Age myself, and try to be open-minded about it. Who knows, some of those ideas (at least the ones which don’t violate laws of nature) may even be true – but I don’t think they have been proven yet. Those who wish to convince us of these things need to prove them, need to provide hard evidence that will stand up to scientific scrutiny, peer review, and all that.
     Meanwhile, there is a credibility problem with some areas of this philosophy, and I would never rely on its teachings to try and back up scientific ideas – for that you need hard evidence, you need a body of knowledge that has predictive value in the sense that theory will enable you to devise technology that *works*, because it is based on sound theory. This is really just an updated version of creationists telling us the “real facts” of how life developed on earth (contradicting all the established knowledge of biology), because the book of Genesis says so.

     Again (to come back to the central point of this forum) I submit that it will not do this campaign any good to too strongly ally it with dubious ideas that almost all scientists, most educated people, and possibly even most people at large, regard as unfounded, and maybe even a bit crackpottish. To do so in a way that appears to agree with those ideas makes it even worse: those whom we are trying to persuade of our view on smart meters are just going to snigger at our credulity in believing in free energy or the 2012 phenomenon, and at our using such ideas to supposedly bolster our opposition to smart meters.
     I don’t think you and I will ever agree on these matters, and it’s probably futile to debate them. But I think a campaign against smart meters needs to be based on verifiable facts, and not on unproven, possibly unprovable, ideas that the majority of informed people don’t accept anyway. Perhaps we should focus on proving the radiation hazards, the lack of security, etc. of smart meters (matters which should be easier to prove if they are true), and not worry too much about whether there are free sources of energy that the powers-that-be are suppressing so we are forced to continue using coal-fired electricity.

Regards, Michael.

Reply
Michael says:

February 20, 2012 at 3:47 am

     Another thing: could someone please explain exactly what is being referred to in the comment above about “suppressed free energy”?
     If this is what I am thinking it probably is, such ideas about free energy are very likely mistaken: it violates fundamental laws of physics to suppose that it is possible to get free energy out of nothing – and those laws are amongst the most validated principles in the entirety of science. It is akin to trying to devise a perpetual motion machine, which is effectively a device intended to get energy for nothing, and this is a pursuit which scientifically illiterate people have devoted countless hours to over the centuries. They are doomed to failure: there is no such thing as free energy, and no-one has devised any source of free energy that will actually deliver, and pass the scrutiny of scientific experts.
     Ideas that there are free sources of energy which are being suppressed by vested interests are in the realm of conspiracy theory, and it might be better not to tie this campaign against smart meters too closely to such doubtful ideas.

Reply
- Michael says:
  
  February 20, 2012 at 10:53 am
  
  Dear Michael
  You have obviously NOT done your research on Free Energy devices, and there is NO conspiracy theory about it either. Our so-called fundamental laws are BS, and you have all been taught it this way to dumb down the population, and it has worked. Mother Earth is Free Energy, the Sun is free energy. Do you see an electrical power point connected to them? There are plenty of free enrgy devices around, and inventors have been threatened and murdered over their inventions. I know, I am in the know-how. See Transformation2012 . net.
  
  Reply
Michael says:

February 20, 2012 at 3:39 am

How do you tell whether something is mandated? Can anyone state definitively whether this contravenes building or electrical codes? We seem to have varying opinions on these matters.
Seems to me this campaign is not going to get anywhere at all without extensive legal advice. Without that, the politicians (to whom such arcane legal matters are second nature) are going to outfox us every time.

Reply
Mia Nony says:

February 18, 2012 at 10:08 pm

Are you certain it is mandated? Or are you assuming it is. In any case? They cannot continue to say they mandate it if it contravenes electrical and building codes. Those are laws. And these frequencies cause vibrations at billions of times a second which loosen all contacts. They also cause harmonics induced corrosion of all metal, etc. which destabilizes structures. Fight back.

Reply
Alda says:

January 23, 2012 at 10:36 am

Paul,
I can imagine how to put 2 layers of alfoil behind or around the antenna but wondering whether it would be a good idea to earth the alfoil?
Also, what are breakers and how do you shut them of?
Finally, you seem to have an emf meter. Where did you get it and how much did it cost, because someone else said they are hard to find these days.

Reply
Paul H says:

January 22, 2012 at 9:06 am

The only way to stop the pulsed microwave radiation, from the smart meter, is to isolate it while sleeping. Place 2 layers of aluminum foil on the wall behind it and shut the breakers off to the house, especially to the bedrooms. I found that large homes seem to have microwave radiation emitting from the power outlets, due to the smart meter trying to communicate with smart appliances.

Reply
Martin says:

January 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Mandatory means nothing. we must stop being enslaved by the controllers. if you obey their so called laws without questioning them, they will keep introducing more to have more and more control over us. FREE ENERGY is the answer.

Reply
- Michael D says:
  
  January 19, 2012 at 6:06 pm
  
  Yes, you are absolutely correct Martin- suppressed Free Energy Technology must be released NOW! No such thing as ‘mandatory’, it is only mandatory if WE the people allow it to be! And, we say NO to Stupid Meters!
  
  Reply
- Michael says:
  
  January 23, 2012 at 7:05 am
  
       Mandatory means nothing? I’m afraid that what it means is simply they say it must be done, pass the appropriate laws, and we have no say. If they’ve made laws to cover it, there’s no appeal against it, and the only *possible* way out might be some sort of legal challenge, which would have to be backed by solid evidence of a threat to health, fire hazard, or some other factor that could be considered a violation of human rights – preferably a violation of some treaty to which the Victorian Government is a signatory. (Do state governments sign such things, or only the federal government?)
       Otherwise I fear it will ultimately go ahead. We can make all the noise we like, but I find it difficult to see how we can make any difference. We all know that loud protests are *not* enough to change governments’ minds: they just tough it out, knowing that, for sure, the energy of the protest will wane. And there is a long time before the next state election – not a good time to be trying to change government policy.
       I hope someone has better ideas than myself about how to prevail, though.
  
  Reply